Looking for Skeptics

[trustbutverify]

I don't remember if flaccon has said if she understands the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

Me neither.

 

[trustbutverify]

If their communications are clear, unambiguous and in full sentences, then why the mystery about what abilities the spirits have? Why not just ask them what their abilities are and then copy their replies verbatim?

Ask them their date of birth. Ask them their date of death. Ask them their mother's maiden name. Ask them their first phone number. What's the problem here? Are these ghosts worried about identity theft?

 

[Cassidy]

Can it?



We have and can ask you to provide these examples for us to hear the full and clear sentences. Why have you not done so?



Please share one of these occasions (the file and where within it) with us.



Well, sort of ask them to sort of get their sort of word sort of out. They can do more to become recognized. Sort of.

I sent jsfisher a recording, I think it has been titled Flaccon 1. There is a womans voice and also a gents voice, who isn't actually replying to the woman. The womans voice is mine and I have no idea who the gents voice belongs to. These are not people who were around me, I was in a quiet room alone. I recorded this in Nov 2012 and on play-back there was nothing specific about it, so it was not titled. These voices were added to that recording on 13th June 2013.

I will say this again because it is true, I am 100% certain that when I heard jsfishers "VolNormInt" for the first time (via land line) there were no interferences whatsoever.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

I sent jsfisher a recording, I think it has been titled Flaccon 1. There is a womans voice and also a gents voice, who isn't actually replying to the woman. The womans voice is mine and I have no idea who the gents voice belongs to. These are not people who were around me, I was in a quiet room alone. I recorded this in Nov 2012 and on play-back there was nothing specific about it, so it was not titled. These voices were added to that recording on 13th June 2013.

I will say this again because it is true, I am 100% certain that when I heard jsfishers "VolNormInt" for the first time (via land line) there were no interferences whatsoever.

Therefore...?

 

[Cassidy]

Me neither.

I know you don't think so, but I do stick to the facts, at all cost.

 

[Pup]

Some of what I heard was the same as in clip2 on my first listen of clip1 (prior to listening to clip2).

On subsequent tries I still tended to hear what I originally thought I was hearing, over what is clear in clip2. I can also hear it the "proper" way when I listen for it.

Kudos to Biscuit for posting a good illustration of how this works.

After about four or five listens to clip1, trying to hear words, I got "Wow whippety snake presents time" to the point that if I were nuts, I might claim that a spirit was speaking that sentence clearly and distinctly. "Presents" would be a verb, with the accent on the second syllable.

After listening to clip2, I still hear most of clip1 the same, except I can easily hear "lunch time" instead of "-sents time" if I want.

Excellent illustration of what's going on. I also wonder if listening with an American accent affects things. In other words, I'm probably hard-wired to try to fit garbled sounds into an American speaking, rather than a Brit. Not sure what difference that makes though.

 

[trustbutverify]

I know you don't think so, but I do stick to the facts, at all cost.

I honestly believe you are trying to stick to the facts as you see them. However, this has nothing to do with the concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity", which are concerned with the methods used to gather one's facts. These two concepts are the beating heart of the experimental approach. I suspect you might not have a strong grasp of this area, judging by your posts.

 

[Cassidy]

Rather than read and reply to posts that I have already tried explaining over and over, and whilst we are waiting for 2 participants to come forward, why doesn't someone out there make a 20 second recording up, using either Youcam, or their built-in "Sound Recorder" and have it uploaded to Box.com. We can all listen in, make notes and check for any interferences (hopefully there will be none) If there isn't any to report, all the better. Then that someone can send me a copy of it, I'll download it and run through this machine, and lets see if it alters at Box.com as well as altering the original.

Its just a thought.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I sent jsfisher a recording, I think it has been titled Flaccon 1. There is a womans voice and also a gents voice, who isn't actually replying to the woman. The womans voice is mine and I have no idea who the gents voice belongs to. These are not people who were around me, I was in a quiet room alone. I recorded this in Nov 2012 and on play-back there was nothing specific about it, so it was not titled. These voices were added to that recording on 13th June 2013.

That's really not what it sounds like.

I mean, even if we take your word for it that the male voices were added later, why were you talking so loudly if you were alone in a quiet room, and why did you repeat yourself 3 times in increasingly emphatic tones, as if someone was not paying attention what you were telling them?

And whose budgie is that?

 

[Cassidy]

That's really not what it sounds like.

I mean, even if we take your word for it that the male voices were added later, why were you talking so loudly if you were alone in a quiet room, and why did you repeat yourself 3 times in increasingly emphatic tones, as if someone was not paying attention what you were telling them?

And whose budgie is that?

Both voices were added on 13-06. I don't expect you to take my word for it, why would you. The point is this, I am telling the truth whether its accepted or not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Both voices were added on 13-06. I don't expect you to take my word for it, why would you. The point is this, I am telling the truth whether its accepted or not.

What do you actually say in that recording, please? And is the budgie yours?

 

[Cassidy]

I honestly believe you are trying to stick to the facts as you see them. However, this has nothing to do with the concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity", which are concerned with the methods used to gather one's facts. These two concepts are the beating heart of the experimental approach. I suspect you might not have a strong grasp of this area, judging by your posts.

I've never experimented in field no.

 

[jsfisher]

Rather than read and reply to posts that I have already tried explaining over and over, and whilst we are waiting for 2 participants to come forward, why doesn't someone out there make a 20 second recording up, using either Youcam, or their built-in "Sound Recorder" and have it uploaded to Box.com. We can all listen in, make notes and check for any interferences (hopefully there will be none) If there isn't any to report, all the better. Then that someone can send me a copy of it, I'll download it and run through this machine, and lets see if it alters at Box.com as well as altering the original.

Its just a thought.

There is no point, yet. You have offered no testable claim. You have claimed the files are altered, but the only measure of that is you saying you now hear something different. You have claimed others hear what you hear, but never actually tried that without telling them what you heard first.

Without something objective to deal with, this will continue as a never ending supposition of how you say the spirits operate alternated with cries of "why don't you believe me?" -- figuratively speaking.

Can the spirits see things you yourself cannot see? -- No.
Can the spirits reveal something that you don't already know? -- No.
Are there others who can reliably hear what you hear on these altered recordings? -- No.
Can the alterations to the recordings be observed in any objective way? -- No.

So, where is this really going, flaccon?

 

[tuxcat]

ambient110713.wav has been uploaded to www.box.com/alderbank. It's a 20 second wav of ambient noise - there are no voices in it because everyone else in the house is asleep and they are not in my office/lair.

A lot of white noise from the cooling fan as it's an internal mic.

 

[abaddon]

I will say this again because it is true, I am 100% certain that when I heard jsfishers "VolNormInt" for the first time (via land line) there were no interferences whatsoever.

I had to take a wee stroll in the cool night time air before replying to this malarkey. How many times must you be told that land line audio has been hacked chopped and mushed so much that you are simply providing ample evidence of pareidolia?
This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. It is not my opinion, or her opinion, or his opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is not an effect, it is done on purpose.

Then you post this.

I know you don't think so, but I do stick to the facts, at all cost.

If true, then you should acknowledge that land lines intentionally introduce alterations. And whatever you thought you heard, it had nothing to do with the original. Bet you won't.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Hi flaccon,

As we found out very early in this thread, you use crappy equipment to listen to crappy recordings. Then you make out sentences on them that no one else hears, except your close associates, and it is far from evident that they hear what you hear.

The set-up you have for recording is incredibly unreliable. You make all the efforts you can muster to encourage glitches and noise. You are not familiar with the equipment you are using. You are not familiar with digital sound signals and how they behave. You are not familiar with pareidolia. You are not familiar with the scientific method of enquiry. You are not familiar with skeptics. How can you possibly be the one to explain the noises you end up with?

All we have so far are a few witnesses who are far from credible and some recordings, very many of which have been listened to by many skeptics, none of whom heard anything near what you allegedly heard.

Not that it would make much of a difference if we did. It would just mean we need to find out where on earth the order amid the noisy chaos comes from. The spirit world is not the first possible cause on the list. Far from it.




There is indeed what sounds like a man on the flaccon1 recording. Even if you don’t know who it is, it doesn’t mean he’s a spirit. Just because we can’t know who this person is, or how he was recorded, it doesn’t follow that he’s a spirit.


Unless someone comes along with a better idea, I impatiently await your video of yourself in action, doing whatever it is you do. If that fun little summer movie shows that your recordings are answering your questions, all that’s left is eliminating trickery and mundane explanations. Then you’re rich and you can build a real Edison machine.

But remember that the results cannot be open to interpretation. That is key.

 

[Cassidy]

What do you actually say in that recording, please? And is the budgie yours?

There isn't a budgie present, its probably/possibly/likely noise from the spirit world, or not. The sentence I hear, I have never said before in my entire life. If you listen @ 0.5 seconds, there is a more quiet high-pitch voice saying "She wasn't speaking"

I asked jsfisher to block the image off the recording. I'm in a quiet room, I have head phones on, and my lips are closed at all times.

 

[tuxcat]

Unless flaccon uses software that doesn't compress audio so that it's so poor quality and glitchy pareidolia is the only explanation that I can see. The quality is so astonishingly bad, you would think it was a 20 year old tape recorder! Using something like Audacity to record the audio is the only way forward - there is no reason not to use Audacity and save the data as a .wav or FLAC.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

ambient110713.wav has been uploaded to www.box.com/alderbank. It's a 20 second wav of ambient noise - there are no voices in it because everyone else in the house is asleep and they are not in my office/lair.

A lot of white noise from the cooling fan as it's an internal mic.

OK. Listening to the spirit-free version I hear a lot of hiss, a bit of clicky noise around 4 seconds, a single faint click at 17s and a keyboard-ish clack right at the end.

MD5: 28154073c96ae20df8d48c013ce64205

 

[jsfisher]

ambient110713.wav has been uploaded to www.box.com/alderbank. It's a 20 second wav of ambient noise - there are no voices in it because everyone else in the house is asleep and they are not in my office/lair.

A lot of white noise from the cooling fan as it's an internal mic.

How could you miss the spirit footsteps at the 5 second mark, the crack from the fireplace at 17, and turning off the lights at the very end? I mean really.